Do we still need ideology today?

Source: The Straits Times, 20/3/9, p.A24
Headline: The case for ideology
Writer: By Anu Saksena

Quote1
Questions have been asked once again about the relevance of ideology, understood as a coherent set of ideas about the existing socio-economic order and offering a blueprint of the future. ...

Comment1
The topic is introduced. The term ideology is defined.

Quote2
In 1960, the sociologist Daniel Bell argued in his seminal work End Of Ideology that ideology was dead, at least in the advanced, industrialised societies of the West. ... In part, this belief came naturally to a generation that had lived through World War II and the holocaust and had concluded that ideological politics was at the root of all misery.

Comment2
The Holocaust experience led many to conclude that ideology is a necessary and sufficient cause of all misery. In formal terms:

(have ideology) = (misery)

This permits Argument #1

Argument #1
Premiss1: (have ideology) = (misery)
Premiss2: reject-(misery)
Conclusion: Hence, reject-(have ideology)

We have one argument for rejecting ideology.

Quote3
In some ways, the "end of ideology" debate was based on a highly limited understanding of "ideology". It was viewed as an indication of an intolerant and limited perspective. ...

Comment3
We have a second argument.

Argument #2
Premiss1: If (have ideology), then (intolerant and limited)
Premiss2: Reject-(intolerant and limited)
Conclusion: hence, reject-(have ideology)

This argument also rejects ideology.

Quote4
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the thesis was revived in Francis Fukuyama's End Of History. The term "end of history" ... means ... that one set of ideas -- Western liberalism, in particular -- had triumphed, thus bringing to a conclusion the historical contestation of ideas.

Comment4
This argument has a slightly different thrust.

Argument #3
Premiss1: If (one ideology triumphs), then (ideology contest ends)
Premiss2: One ideology triumphs
ConclusionL Hence, ideology contest ends

Quote5
The 21st century, however, has witnessed the revival ... of religious fundamentalism and ethno-nationalism. Also, environmentalism or ecologism has emerged as the most cross-cutting ideology in the world today.

Comment5
Other ideologies are revived. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is no longer true. Argument #3 collapses.

Quote6
All ideologies are the result of crises of one kind or another. The crisis that looms largest today is the global economic recession. ... It has raised fundamental questions about free market capitalism and the role of government in the economy.

Comment6
The global economic crisis raised fundamental questions. Premiss2 in Argument #3 is again no longer true. Argument #3 again collapses.

Quote7
There is a need to reorient the existing liberal capitalist model. In the past it has responded to the changing needs of time in a dynamic manner. ...

Comment7
The conclusion is (need to reorient existing liberal capitalist model). The argument for this conclusion is complex, hidden behind the simple second sentence. Let me try to present the complex argument formally (this being the clearest way to present an argument).

Argument #4
Premiss1: If (no proof ideology contest end), then (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)
Premiss2: (No proof ideology contest end) [from Comment5 and Comment6]
Conclusion: Hence, (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model)

This opens the door for Argument #5.

Argument #5A
Reason: In past, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Sentence2 in Quote7]
Conclusion: Hence, now, If (changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [to #5C,P1]

Argument #5B
Premiss1: If (fundamentalism & economic recession), then (changing needs) [implied]
Premiss2: Fundamentalism & economic recession [from Quote5 and Quote6]
Conclusion: (changing needs) [to #5C, P2]

Argument #5C
Premiss1: If ((changing needs), then (reorient liberal capitalist model) [Argument #5A]
Premiss2: (changing needs) [Argument #5B]
Conclusion: Then (reorient liberal capitalist model)

The first problem in Argument #5 arises in #5A. Just because something has been a certain way in the past does not imply that it must continue to be that way in the present or future. Examples: Foot-binding, slavery. To argue this way commits the fallacy Argumentum ad Populum (Tradition). Such an argument must be rejected.

The second problem in Argument #5 is in #5C, P1. All that Argument #4 had shown was (maybe reorient liberal capitalist model), it did not compel it. Back to Argument #5C: it remains possible that the current liberal capitalist model continues to be adequate to the ideological contest with (fundamentalism & economic recession).

Argument #5 fails.

Quote8
No one knows when the current crises will end and what the future holds for us, but we can be quite certain that ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world. We need ideologies to make sense of the complex world we live in. ...

Comment8
A position is taken that "ideologies and ideological debate will continue to transform the world". The argument offered is one of necessity.

Argument #6
Premiss1: If (make sense of world), then (need ideology)
Premiss2: Make sense of world
Conclusion: Hence, need ideology

Quote9
Far from shying away from ideological debates, we should embrace them for they can offer us different visions of a changing world and how best to cope with it.

Comment9
(Need ideology) [from Argument #6] does not entail (embrace ideology debate) [position in Quote9]. That requires the further steps of saying:

1. We wish to have the best ideology.
2. Having the best ideology allows us to best cope with the changing world.
3. Ideology debate results in the best ideology.

These steps are not taken.

Also, Argument #1 and Argument #2 for rejecting ideology have not been rebutted. They still stand.

Conclusion
Ideology is something we need [Argument #6], but should not have [Argument #1, Argument #2].